« New design | Main | Obama's misguided spending freeze »

January 31, 2010


Contrary to your comment, Fred Thompson's tweet in no way suggested that President Obama is a Muslim or a non-citizen. It suggested that whomever Obama campaigns for (i.e., Deeds, Corzine, Coakley) loses. Thompson was making what we laymen refer to as a "joke." What Thompson wrote was fine; what you wrote about Thompson is, quite candidly, a smear.

Points to Brendan for noting explicitly that Rich provided no evidence for his criticism. OTOH the New York Post had plenty of evidence. In fact, the Post editorial had nothing to do with Obama's religion or citizenship. It made the point that he was not properly prosecuting the War on Terror.

President Obama should be using his full powers to fight the enemy IMHO. Of course he is constrained by the Constitution (as interpreted by SCOTUS), but he should not voluntarily put additional constraints on his own efforts. To do so is simply not doing his job.

The question, "Whose side is he on?" would be appropriate rhetoric for most Presidents behaving this way. However, it's unfortunate here, as Brendan points out, because some readers will take it as a suggestion that Obama is literally disloyal.

I see no reason to suspect disloyalty I think Hanlon's Razor applies: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Incidentally, for an expert discussion of Obama's handling of the War on Terror, see this op-ed from yesterday's Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903954.html

Rob -- I understand it was a joke (that's why I described it as such), but it plays on the misperception. Ask yourself this: did anyone make jokes like that about President Bush when he was much more unpopular than Obama? The answer is no.

The comments to this entry are closed.